Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

<snip>Ah, the ever-popular 'buh buh both sides do it' argument. How old are you, Jakob? How many years of audiophile rhetoric have you experienced? Someone my age (mid 50s) who's been following along know very well where the balance of 'exaggerations' rests on this matter. Do you?

First, i was simply stating a fact; i´m sure as a grown up, you´re able to accept a fact.Second, in my book is stating the impossibility of perception (of a certain effect) and doing simply sloppy tests to examing equally doing harm as it is the audiophile generalization routine.

Quote

<snip>It's not like their perception isn't in accord with what one would predict though. "hi rez" = better, right? (though in fact, hi rez masterings *can* be just as dynamic-range limited as CD releases; M&M assumed the masterings were more high-fidelity).

No, they were adamant about the higher quality (means they stated it as a fact), and only assumed about the reasons ......

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Quite possible Jakob2, but that is speculation on your part. Where is the data for the IM tests and other system tests performed by Oohashi or any other believer such as yourself? You are hanging your hat on results of a system of unknown provenance?Oh well, believers gonna believe. <snip>

That is the second time in this thread that you distorted my posts into the opposite of what i´ve written (and or meant). I´m sure you are able to refrain form that sort of childish behaviour.

Oohashi et al. provided already a lot of detailed information in their published article. Inclusion of IMD measurement would have been better indeed although wrt to the spectral content and level of the high frequency content the assumption of "harmlessness" is justified.But anyway it is a valid concern and should be evaluated too in further experiments.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Although i usually enjoy a good "reposte joke" , why was it a "cheap shot"?I´ve stated a fact (if it was "cd - version" or "most cds" can´t make the difference, can it? ) and your longer excerpt confirms the statement and the remainder of the publication confirms that no controlled listening tests were done to examine their subjective impression.

Quote

Their chapter 4 was an attempt at explaining where those differences originate, given that they were demonstrated to not be due to the CD format. And their explanation, while not the result of scientific investigation, is entirely plausible. It is offered as a note, which makes it clear that no scientific rigor is to be assumed or demanded regarding this explanation.

They delivered a speculation about the reasons for an unconfirmed assertion. While it is not unusual to find speculations about the reasons for a confirmed result in a published paper, what they did was imo quite unusual.

But it is be more reasonable to blame the peer reviewers for letting that slip through too, but i did not blame Mayer/Moran, just stated the fact. Why that should be considered as a "cheap shot" remains dubious, but maybe you could explain.

Quote

I really have no tolerance for the often malicious ways in which their paper is being criticised, and you are no exception here.

You failed again in explaining were i criticized their paper in a malicious way, but you´ve revealed again that you like to apply double standards.See your request for IMD measurements from Oohashi et al. and compare it to your very forgiving assessment of Meyer/Moran´s policy of providing no measurements at all.

You even insisted that i (by stating that Meyer/Moran didn´t supply the most basic measurements and obviously didn´t do the measurements) would try to raise the requirements to an unfullfillable level. (as if keeping a labor notebook weren´t a normal routine in the scientific world)

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

anyway it is a valid concern and should be evaluated too in further experiments.

Right, so let's strike Oohashi of your "list" and let's see the rest. Don't bother with the 2014 one I linked either, purported to show "Negative Hyperbolic Effect" using what appears to be the same setup.

Once again, your purported list.

Or is that petulant childish evasion and arms we hear flapping again...

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Although i usually enjoy a good "reposte joke" , why was it a "cheap shot"?

Because you made it look like Meyer/Moran had blundered in a similar way as Oohashi by not doing a controlled test to confirm what they offered as a plausible explanation for their experimental result. This is foul play.

Quote

I´ve stated a fact (if it was "cd - version" or "most cds" can´t make the difference, can it? ) and your longer excerpt confirms the statement and the remainder of the publication confirms that no controlled listening tests were done to examine their subjective impression.

Yes, and I confirmed that, as you may have noticed.

Quote

They delivered a speculation about the reasons for an unconfirmed assertion. While it is not unusual to find speculations about the reasons for a confirmed result in a published paper, what they did was imo quite unusual.

You may call it speculation, but their explanation was and still is quite plausible. I fail to see why that would be unusual when you confirm that such occurences are quite common in published papers. I don't think anybody seriously disputes that different releases of the same material often sound quite different. So why would it be necessary to do a controlled listening test on something so self-evident? It wouldn't have changed anything of relevance in Meyer/Moran's main point.

It is particularly telling to compare this to Oohashi's case. Their result is rendered invalid when its cause was IMD.

Quote

But it is be more reasonable to blame the peer reviewers for letting that slip through too, but i did not blame Mayer/Moran, just stated the fact. Why that should be considered as a "cheap shot" remains dubious, but maybe you could explain.

Nobody is to blame here. No mistake was made. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Quote

You failed again in explaining were i criticized their paper in a malicious way, but you´ve revealed again that you like to apply double standards.See your request for IMD measurements from Oohashi et al. and compare it to your very forgiving assessment of Meyer/Moran´s policy of providing no measurements at all.

Again, the question of whether there was IMD is one that makes or breaks Oohashi's main result. This is not the case in Meyer/Moran's experiment. One doesn't measure for measurement's sake, it has to be relevant to what the experiment wants to achieve.

Quote

You even insisted that i (by stating that Meyer/Moran didn´t supply the most basic measurements and obviously didn´t do the measurements) would try to raise the requirements to an unfullfillable level. (as if keeping a labor notebook weren´t a normal routine in the scientific world)

No, it's not about your request being unfullfillable, it is about it being unreasonable and malicious, i.e. expressly designed to discredit a largely well-executed and convincing experiment.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"

Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.

Note: the owner of the audiosciencereview.com web site is given by WHOIS as: AMIR MAJIDIMEHR. The relevant business at the given address is: Madrona Digital, 14210 NE 20th St, Suite B Bellevue, WA 9800.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

... ... ...Note: the owner of the audiosciencereview.com web site is given by WHOIS as: AMIR MAJIDIMEHR. The relevant business at the given address is: Madrona Digital, 14210 NE 20th St, Suite B Bellevue, WA 9800.

Oh my god.

(As an expression of horror, lest anyone should think that I mean it as recognition of a deity)

<snip>Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.<snip>

Although you were starting with "absolutely false" you did in fact confirm my assertion. Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.<snip>

Although you were starting with "absolutely false" you did in fact confirm my assertion.

I don't recall you admitting that sighted evaluations are generally invalid. So, I have not confirmed your position at all.

That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist. Do you know of one?

Quote

Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Again that's the audiophile self-deception - that any kind of usable listening test takes less care, effort, and knowledge.

They're actually trying to take that old saw "Ignorance is Bliss" to the bank, but the banker isn't buying any.

Quote

and why are you in horror due to Amirm´s profession?

What do you think Amir's profession is?

BTW, I see that you don't even seem to know what his first name is. It is not Amirm. He told me so.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

To be honest i see from my limited reading at audiosciencereview that Amir himself does very rational posts. He does nice measurements and does not loose himself in outer space nonsense.Unfortunately his place offers several abductees with obviously still pretty tight sitting anal probes a new platform.

Last Edit: 2017-04-21 17:49:54 by Wombat

Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

To be honest i see from my limited reading at audiosciencereview that Amir himself does very rational posts. He does nice measurements and does not loose himself in outer space nonsense.Unfortunately his place offers several abductees with obviously still pretty tight sitting anal probes a new platform.

Amir is in his way the same kind of threat to reason as John Atkinson with some twists. Measurements are not necessarily any kind of solution for Golden Earism. Just add leading zeroes to your performance goals. It is possible to sound reasonable but still be wrong when there are some very loudly crazy people running around.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist. Do you know of one?

At least the outright fraudulent quacks willingly dared to pit their powers against Randi. We all know how placebophiles react towards DBTs. "Cowards" would be a better description.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist. Do you know of one?

At least the outright fraudulent quacks willingly dared to pit their powers against Randi. We all know how placebophiles react towards DBTs. "Cowards" would be a better description.

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

<snip>I don't recall you admitting that sighted evaluations are generally invalid. So, I have not confirmed your position at all.

You don´t need to confirm my position at all, but the assertion, that ajinfla cited, was backed up by your post. Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests. The reason is quite simple; "blinding" removes just one cognitive bias, all others are still at work. And the list of remaining bias effects is quite long, starting with Rosenthal and Hawthourne, covering presentation order and/or time order errors, habituation effect (strongly related to the internal criterion problem) and does not end with bias effects due to knowledge about the EUT.

Nonusage of positive and negative controls makes incorrect results even more likely.

PS. Tom Nousaine noted the high error rate in same/different tests already back in 1990 and in other well documented (even with large samples) that fact is confirmed by error rates up to 80% in trials.Experiments within Signal Detection Theory have shown that for example cash prizes directly influenced decision strategies of the participants.

Quote

That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist. Do you know of one?

Have a look at fields of science where "blinding" is not possible or maybe even ethically forbidden. They do controlled tests without "blinding" and it seems they nevertheless can achieve some valid work.

But, as we are able to incorporate the "blind" property we should do it, but your assertion that "sighted listening is invalid" isn´t correct, as impossibility to show validness isn´t the same as invalid. The problem with sighted listning tests (that could otherwise be controlled in the same manner as a controlled tests including "blindness") simply exists because one is not able to show the internal validity.As said many times before, most people use controlled blind tests to confirm something they discovered during sighted listening; wouldn´t make much sense if sighted listening isn´t of merit.

Subjective evaluation deals a lot with bias effects, if participants aren´t not able to control (up to a certain degree) their bias, correct results were simply only due to chance.

Quote

Quote

Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Again that's the audiophile self-deception - that any kind of usable listening test takes less care, effort, and knowledge.

Maybe that self-deception exists partly, the direct pseudoobjectivistic counterpart would be "doing blind" is already better/sufficient.

Quote

What do you think Amir's profession is?

In our context.....running Madrona Digital.

Quote

BTW, I see that you don't even seem to know what his first name is. <snip>

Either that, or it is simply that i tend to use the forum nicks instead of real names......

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"

Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests.

Just another delusion of your ilk. The very reason for controlled testing is due to the unreliability of uncontrolled testing. There is zero equivalence, except for those peddlers with pecuniary interests such as your ilk.

And the list of remaining bias effects is quite long, starting with Rosenthal and Hawthourne, covering presentation order and/or time order errors, habituation effect (strongly related to the internal criterion problem) and does not end with bias effects due to knowledge about the EUT. Nonusage of positive and negative controls makes incorrect results even more likely.

So list your positive controls for your sighted listening that you equate with controlled listening.Also list Oohashis positive control. What was it?Btw, if blinding is as useless as a delusional peddler such as yourself claims, why are you continuously citing controlled (blind) tests like Oohashi to begin with? You scammers can't have it both ways.

According to this source, we have "Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder". If you know anything about organizations, those titles are often ceremonial.

Let's test this hypothesis out. There are 4 clickable types of positions on the page: Operations, Implementation, Engineering, Network. Click any of them and several of the little portraits change from black-and-white to color. Color means that the person so designated is assigned to that area.

In this context, "running Madrona Digital" would equate to Operations. Click Operations and 5 portraits change to color, but none of the color portraits are Amir. Try any of the other three clickable phrases and various portraits change to color, but never Amir's. This would be consistent with the individual job titles, as previously mentioned.